When creativity becomes content

In adland’s binary world ‘magicians’ see creativity whilst ‘mathematicians’ see content. It’s time to get them together again, writes David Brennan, founder of Media Native.

I attended my first Ad Week Europe last month and I was pleasantly surprised (apart from the queuing system, which made some of London Transport’s recent travails seem like a walk in the park). I witnessed some high quality debate, a real sense of the unfolding opportunities digital convergence is creating and – most of all – a sense of celebration of the best our industry has to offer.

Most of our working lives we find ourselves on the back foot; defending a position or responding to the latest disruption that is threatening to replace our existing business model. So, it is a rare, uplifting feeling – reinforced by the unexpected springtime weather – to see the best of our industry in action.

We produce some really good stuff. We should never forget that. I’ve been working in advertising and media since before ‘New Romantic’ meant anything other than a bunch of 18th century poets, and it amazes me how much talent, innovation, big-picture thinking and creativity we produce, even as we rock from one technological disruption to the next.

Creativity, most of all.

Ad Week Europe was a great showcase for creativity. Excellent ideas, based on universal themes, communicated in powerful ways which resonate way beyond their point of impact. The standing room-only Creative Carousel – hosted by Lindsay Clay – was a joy to attend, but this focus on creativity – and its manifestations through music, vlogging, film, gaming, journalism and just about any other channels you can think of – was a strand running through much of the week.

I thought most of the media represented at Ad Week Europe – both legacy and digital media – stated their case for a meaningful role in this fast-evolving landscape really well, and most of them addressed their unique ability to deliver an audience, environment or context within which the best creativity could land, thrive and linger. In which it could resonate.

But then there were the other bits. ‘Programmatic 101’. ‘The War on Ad Fraud’. ‘How Will Programmatic Change The TV Landscape?’. ‘Decoding Programmatic’. ‘Advertising Automation: Into The Looking Glass’. ‘Programmatic – Problem or Panacea?’

Are you seeing a pattern emerging there?

There were a few sessions that brought these worlds together, but to be honest they were mainly inhabiting different universes, and nowhere was this more so than in their differing perceptions of how this great industry of ours is powered. In this (still) binary world of the magic and the math(s), the magicians see ‘creativity’ and the mathematicians see ‘content’.

There is no doubting digital’s huge and (generally) positive influence on both our personal and professional lives, but I’ve always believed it will struggle to reach its full potential until it understands the power of the magic over the maths.

This disconnect can be seen in those two little words; content and creativity. Based on nothing more scientific than my failing memory, the term ‘content’ was used far more frequently in the latter sessions, whereas ‘creativity’ far more in the former.

There is nothing inherently wrong with that, but reducing the ephemeral, mercurial, unpredictable nature of great creativity, to sort of commoditise it all into this murky gloop we define as ‘content’ tends to undermine its performance.

‘Content’ is a form of commoditisation. It assumes all exposures to whatever content has equal value. It assumes the variations between great and awful ‘content’ can somehow be built into the relevant algorithms and analytics.

It assumes it is easy to produce and personalise; one of the false premises of addressability is that “It is possible to have a different ad for every household “. It assumes (quite rightly) that anybody can produce ‘content’ and (quite wrongly) that it will automatically have a value. Most analysis of ‘content’ rarely values or even measures the impact of the surrounding context.

Seeing creativity as merely content helps to feed the hype around programmatic trading, addressability, native content, online display, social media and UGC, to name but a few.

When I raised this dissonance between the maths and the magic at a session on the relationship between branded content and film, panellist Adrian Pettit from Cake (who, I have to admit, came up with the maths vs. magic analogy in the first place) summed up the debate in relation to branded content when he stated the magic will always drive the process – and the performance; the maths is there to work it as hard as possible.

If this is the case, I would like to see more evidence from the mathematicians about how they can add potency to the magic fairy dust, as well as making it sprinkle further and for longer. I would like to see them talking the language of creativity more, attempting to factor in its complexities and nuances more sensitively.

Because, ironically, maths and magic go back a long way. We simply need them to get back together again.